who thinks art should not be awarded prizes as its in the eye of the beholder?

Answer 1

i agree
and i hope the artist doesnt seek a prize as motivation.
he may be poor though and need to pay his rent and buy materials though

Answer 2

That's a good question. And it's true what you're saying though. But think about it for a second. There are many forms of art. Music is a good example, most musicians I think are in it for money and fame, not because they are artistic in the form of creating music. I myself am a painter and a graphic artist. I get attention because of my art and attention is a good thing because you then know what the public enjoys looking at. But as the prizes are concerned I think it's a cheap form of attention the artist is craving. I mean how can you give a prize to a person if his style is different from other artists.

Answer 3

All art, whether it's visual art, music, dance, literature etc. is subjective. It's all 'in the eye of the beholder'. So when MANY eyes all concur that a particular work is noteworthy, we award a prize as recognition of that fact. Why should it be any different for visual artists than it is for musicians, actors etc?

Answer 4

It's a tough question, but I have a reallys trong opinion on the matter. I think modern art (thanks, marcel duchamp) has become quite ugly, and driven by statement rather than aesthetics. Now instead of a statue of david or even a mural by picasso, we have a urinal on a stand in a gallery. A urinal that has been signed by the artist, and therefore is a work of art.

However, it isn't just the amount of labor and skill put into a piece of work, it is also the final appearance. Jackson pollock put almost no technical skill into his "splatter" paintings, yet they are amazingly gorgeous.

I think it comes down to the process and execution, but no matter what, a painting is always a better piece of art than a urinal.

Answer 5

i dunno, there are certain ability levels though, ive been to a couple art shows with prizes involved an i could tell why the prizes went to who they went to. each technique has been seen or done before, an judges usually are people who have seen a at least a majority of it. every peice can have something judged about it, like composition style whatever unless its some new breakthrough in the art world lol. i guess you just have to look at the piece thoroughly an decide how much thought an time an ability must have been put into it

Answer 6

i believe that in most cases this is true, but i think the most important thing is the fact that the artist has shown their passion through their painting or photograph (etc).

If the artist has not been passionate about their work it will show, and (in my opinion) a painting without feeling has no point.